How many of the PF members are following the cricket world cup 2011 ?
Depends a lot on whether you one of the 10 test playing nations, but still just curious.
This is the most open WC in many years with all the top 5 teams having a realistic chance at the title.
I have a doubt, I think we also cannot tell what the "domain" is just from the "formula" . We can say what it "is not" but we can't say what it "is".
for instance we can define a function as f:[1,2]->R , with f(x) = ex . here "domain" is what we define(i.e [1,2]) ,"co-domain" is what we...
basically , my confusion is this :-
in functions which are not 'onto' , we are not pairing all the elements of the co-domain with elements of domain.
but does the opposite make sense , i.e can we speak of a domain where some elements are not paired with elements of co-domain?
Sorry if...
Consider the mapping f: X\rightarrowY where f(x)=y=\sqrt{1-x^2}
consider the co-domain Y , we can define the mapping over [-1,1] \rightarrow \mathbb R , ( in this case the mapping won't be onto)
and in case we define the mapping over [-1,1] \rightarrow [0,1] (in this case mapping is onto)
(is...
No I am not attempting too much. hehe. After reading a few pages of Rudin and Herstein I have kept them out of sight currently. I am doing Spivak - Calculus.
I just asked about the future books in view of making arrangements for them - i.e borrowing from someone.
Only after Spivak will I...
@mathwonk Yes , when I read a few pages of Herstein and Rudin , I did experience what you just told.
Apart from the difficulty level , I didn't get what the motivation was behind certain things.
I.e I found the brevity aspect going against a beginner such as me.
So I have decided to start...
ok. I will see if I can get hold of the proofs/analysis books.
I was asking if I can use Spivak directly is because, I haven't had much trouble understanding the proofs used by Spivak.
And anyways having done Engineering one has some notion of proofs. My point is , can formal study of proofs...
How is Calculus by Spivak ?
I have it. Can I use it as a background instead of going through Lay's/Velleman. As I guess, calculus would be more famililar territory for me instead of methods of proofs ?
I will be appearing for a Maths exam.
For which I will have to be acquainted with what's contained in Herstein's Topics in Algebra and Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
I have got very little pure mathematics background. I have completed engineering so have 4 semesters experience...
Thanks for the replies . I will check those links.
Anyways , my earlier understanding was flawed , wasn't it :-
I guess I was using "7" as a subject whereas "7+5" in its entirety is the subject.
Yes, I read the transcedental argument of Kant.
But I would also like to know what proof the modern day philosophers who are proponents of this theory use.
The links you gave don't say much about arithmetic.
:cry: